The emotions associated with personal and group identity are
comparable to those associated with sex.

For a start, they are deeply rooted in human nature and
behaviour, which evolved over millions of years, when we lived in
extended family groups in the natural environment - not in the
artificial, "socio-economic environment" we struggle for survival
and personal advantage in today.

The same emotions, and the behaviours they drive, vary greatly,
from individual to individual, and within the same individual over
time and circumstance, in both importance and expression, from being
a virtual irrelevance to being an all-consuming passion, from being
a source of great joy and fulfillment to being a source of misery
and suffering. They can carry us to the greatest heights of what it
means to be human and to the lowest depths of our brutish nature.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that "identity" (personal
and group identity, relating to the present and the past, and going
back for generations and millennia), like sex, is an extremely
important matter. Jonathan Freedland here sounds to me like a
sex-education teacher, imbibed with the "progressive", permissive
attitudes of the 60's, but clueless as to the meaning and depth of
the subject, giving a very boring and misleading (potentially
corrupting) talk to a class of 14-year olds.

Does it not occur to him that others might long for - and need,
even if they are unaware of it - as deep and meaningful a sense of
personal and group identity has he has, I assume, from being a Jew?

As far as I'm concerned, the sense of "British" identity our
politicians and political commentators are desperately trying to
sell us is a load of bollocks, with the purpose of serving their own
self-interests by legitimizing the power structures of this nation
state, on which, granted, we ALL depend, but which are deeply rooted
in our animal nature and behaviour, and exploited (as they always
have been) by our social elites - to which Jonathan, of course, now
belongs.

2nd Post

"British identity" is about legitimizing and strengthening the
"nation state" we take for granted, while neglecting what its
origins and purposes are.

Evolution adapted human nature and
behaviour to life in extended family groups, which were held
together by strong emotional bonds of family affection and loyalty,
and mutual material dependency. Now, we no longer depend on our
extended family, but on the state, which has effectively taken its
place, and in return demands our loyalty (and taxes). MONEY -
provided we have enough of it - gives us the illusion of personal
independence, but this rests and depends entirely on the power
structures, laws and law enforcement of the nation state.

When extended family groups merged or were incorporated into
larger social units - which, from an evolutionary perspective,
occurred relatively recently - a new situation arose, in which
cunning and/or powerful individuals were able to exploit other
individuals' dependency and sense of loyalty to their own advantage.
Thus emerged an aristocracy and priesthood, the former exploiting
society through physical intimidation and the power of the sword,
the latter through emotional intimidation and the power of the word
(of God or the gods).

These two elites formed a complementary and all-powerful alliance
which exploited the mass of society (the peasantry) to their own
advantage, although it was always presented, not as exploitation,
but as "service". There were, of course, rivalries and conflicts
within the aristocracy and priesthood themselves, and between the
two, but they generally knew when to stick together in order to
suppress and exploit the peasants. To confuse matters and give
credibility to the myth of "service", most members of the
aristocracy and especially the clergy, sincerely believed it
themselves, and some even tried to live up to it.

Society is no longer dominated by an all-powerful alliance of
aristocracy and clergy, but by other, less ridged, more "meritocratic",
elites and alliances, still driven by the same, deeply rooted
patterns of behaviour: cooperation when necessary (when it suits us,
or we are forced to) and the continuing (Darwinian) struggle for
survival, status and advantage in the artificial "socio-economic
environment" that has effectively replaced the natural environment -
which, incidentally, is why we persist in giving absolute priority
to economics (the household of man in the socio-economic
environment) instead of to ecology (the household of our planet in
the natural environment) when it is obvious (were we not blinded by
normality and dependency) that human survival now urgently demands
the opposite.

Like those of yesteryear, today's elites are convinced
themselves, and assure everyone else (which in politics and the
media they are very well positioned to do), that they are absolutely
essential to the functioning and general welfare of society, and
that any advantages they enjoy are wholly rational and justified. Of
course they are - just as those of the aristocracy and clergy once
were.

That, I think, is enough for one post, but I will follow it up
later with another.

3rd Post

Modern society combines and confounds what were once, when human
nature and behaviour were still evolving, two distinct
environments: one's own extended family group, on the one hand,
and the natural environment, which included other, rival, groups
of humans, on the other.

This is why the artificial,
socio-economic environment (and order) in which we now live is
so confusing, stressful and dysfunctional (e.g. crime and
antisocial behaviour): one moment we view others as members of
our own group, the next we see them as strangers, members of a
rival group, with the very different emotions associated with
each. Added to which, members of what is definitely supposed to
be our own group (compatriots) are busy seeking to exploit us
(quite legitimately, as workers, tenants, consumers, or
whatever), instead of cooperating and sharing with us "on an
equal basis" for our mutual benefit in exploiting the natural
environment or "other" groups of humans.

I hope that here and in my previous two posts I have
sufficiently made my case in explaining the socio-economic
"state" we are in - both in the sense of "nation state" and
"mess".

It is not just socially unjust and inhumane, as it always has
been, but now also materially quite unsustainable; because,
dominated by our blind, dumb-animal nature, we are bound to give
priority to economics (and our own, particular, narrow and
short-sighted self-interests) instead of to ecology, which we
have to do if we don't want to joint the dinosaurs before the
end of this century.

But how to extricate ourselves from our seemingly hopeless
situation, from a socio-economic order on which we ALL totally
depend, but is so deeply rooted in and dependent on our animal
nature?

The answer has to lie in recognition of the actual situation,
as opposed to the myth, of what it means to be "British" (or any
other nationality), and in the freedom of individuals to create
alternatives to the nation state by deciding for themselves
which groups they belong to, with what priority, and to
self-organize accordingly.

The Internet and biometrics (necessary to combat identity
deception) now provide the means. It's up to us to start getting
our act(s) together.

It will amount to the biggest and most profound revolution in
human history and needs to be prepared with great care and
caution (including a commitment to non-violence), but we need to
get a move on. Time is running short, with a ruthless Mother
Nature already "warming up" for the job of reducing human
numbers and activity to sustainable levels, which we are
currently incapable of doing ourselves.